[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvBiH8U5OuY[/media]
Fucking hell. This is so much win.
Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
Um...no? Pretty sure this weapon/round is used on infantry all the time. It can do either or. That's like saying an RPG or other rocket is illegal to use on infantry. This is a long range sniper rifle.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
All is fair in love and war.
I could only imagine the remain of the guys hit by the .50
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if it's illegal but the round is nasty, if you get nailed by one of those rounds it's going to tear a limb off.
[QUOTE=Sir Spicy Buns;34795022]I don't know if it's illegal but the round is nasty, if you get nailed by one of those rounds it's going to tear a limb off.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to war.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
I think it is illegal to use anti material weapons on infantry. I'm not sure though cause it really doesn't make any sense.
Well the military does put .50s on hummers, tanks and helicopters, so
So wait, Barrett M82A3+Raufoss MK211 ammo+Brick Wall=A literal sniper shotgun?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34795073]I think it is illegal to use anti material weapons on infantry. I'm not sure though cause it really doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
My friend is in the Navy and he told me just the other day that yes, it is indeed against the Geneva Convention to use anti-material rounds (or at least .50 caliber rounds) against infantry.
A shipmate of his told him that once, a group of Somali pirates attacked their ship. He was on a .50 and opened up. Left nothing of the pirates, they could barely even identify the body parts. Which I'm pretty sure is why it's illegal.
Kinda silly, but I can see where they're coming from.
[QUOTE=hamberglar;34795352]My friend is in the Navy and he told me just the other day that yes, it is indeed against the Geneva Convention to use anti-material rounds (or at least .50 caliber rounds) against infantry.
A shipmate of his told him that once, a group of Somali pirates attacked their ship. He was on a .50 and opened up. Left nothing of the pirates, they could barely even identify the body parts. Which I'm pretty sure is why it's illegal.
Kinda silly, but I can see where they're coming from.[/QUOTE]
You're friend needs to study the rules of war a little better.
The Geneva convention said you couldn't use AP .50 cal or other special bullets against human targets. Only ball ammunition is allowed.
None of the Geneva Conventions (yup, conventions) govern the rules of warfare (and therefore the type of weapon or ammo that can or cannot be used). The 1st deals with the treatment of sick and wounded soldiers. The 2nd deals with the treatment of injured sailors/shipwreck victims. The 3rd Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, nothing more. The 4th one deals with the treatment of civilians during wartime.
What you're looking for is the 4th Hague Convention, which deals with the "The Laws and Customs of War on Land". Again, there's nothing there that says it's illegal to use .50 cal ammo against human targets. The 4th Hague Convention doesn't even has an entry for "hollow point" (exact wording) bullets. We'll get to this later.
What the 4th Hague Convention prohibits is the use of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering"; an example being biological weapons. The misconception is that it prohibits weapons that do too much damage. The truth is, what it prohibits, are weapons that cause grievous wounds but do not kill outright, thereby causing prolonged agony to the victim. A .50 cal to the head (or chest, for that matter) does not cause unnecessary suffering. In most cases, the victim wouldn't even know he's hit 'coz he's already dead.
It does prohibit the use of soft-nosed "dum-dum" bullets (British invention, so-called because it was made at the Dum-Dum arsenal). They're expanding bullets (remember, they're soft-nosed), with effects kinda similar to hollow points. There's a very small open point at the end of the bullet, but nothing like the large hollows found in "real" hollow point bullets. Whether the prohibition of dum-dum bullets automatically means modern hollow points are outlawed in the battlefield is an issue that always causes never-ending arguments though, so I'm not going there.
Source: My knowledge from being in the Marine Corps and being overseas twice... not just being on a ship off the coast of a war. No offense :)
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
Also, this weapon is not an anti-tank rifle. It's a multi-purpose sniper rifle. This means it uses a large round (.50 cal) not only to give it extra range, but extra power, to take out targets behind cover. Yes, you could stop an [b]unarmored or lightly armored[/b] vehicle with a well placed shot (at a much closer range), but that's it.
[QUOTE=Coridan;34795768]Geneva convention.[/QUOTE]
Winner, zing, or informative?!
[QUOTE=CanadianBill;34796009]Winner, zing, or informative?![/QUOTE]
All three.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;34794951]Isn't it against the Geneva convention ROE or something like that to use an anti-tank rifle on infantry?[/QUOTE]
You may be thinking of a different round. I remember hearing of some rounds the US army used to use that had radioactive particles on them that would give the injured cancer. That may be the one that is not allowed to be used at all
Radio active rounds being outlawed at the Geneva convention? Something about the timeline sounds wrong there...
a .50 Round from a mile out packs so much kinetic energy I'd be surprised if any of his limbs were even attached to what was once a torso. I hate reenactments of sniper shots though. They always show the guy taking up the entire scope. At 1,000 meters, on that rifle, in that scope, a human target takes up exactly 1.8Mildots. And a mile away? Even less
Canada still holds the longest shot ever.
[QUOTE=shian;34799437]Canada still holds the longest shot ever.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKSI7MQhB0o[/media]
Just like in battlefield 3 :downs:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHK3q1A38A&feature=related[/media]
[video=youtube;qsIUbRPLq1Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsIUbRPLq1Y&feature=related[/video]
Full video.
There's a video of Blackwater (When it was still called that) snipers on a rooftop firing off a Mod 0 or SR-25 or some such, and half way through the video you hear someone fire a .50 M87 or M107, and the sound of that thing made their semi-auto rifles sound like air guns
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;34797058]Radio active rounds being outlawed at the Geneva convention? Something about the timeline sounds wrong there...[/QUOTE]
Just because a thing hasn't been invented yet doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the "unnecessary suffering" category once it finally is invented. That's the cool thing about using a broad generalization.
This is what is left of a guy's head when a .50 hits it
[b]SERIOUSLY NSFW[/b]
[url=http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/40566d1237943034-suicide-bomber-failed-mission.jpg]clicky[/url]
[editline]21st February 2012[/editline]
Most of you have probably seen this picture anyway
[QUOTE=tommyc225;34808113]This is what is left of a guy's head when a .50 hits it
[b]SERIOUSLY NSFW[/b]
[url=http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/40566d1237943034-suicide-bomber-failed-mission.jpg]clicky[/url]
[editline]21st February 2012[/editline]
Most of you have probably seen this picture anyway[/QUOTE]Meh, take some Tylenol and it'll be fine.
[QUOTE=faze;34808572]Meh, take some Tylenol and it'll be fine.[/QUOTE]
And stick a band-aid on too... good as new!
[QUOTE=shian;34799437]Canada still holds the longest shot ever.[/QUOTE]
Actually the Brits gained the longest shot by 45m :v:
We still hold 2nd & 3rd, and held the top for quite a while, which is why you don't make fun at the Canadian army, no matter how far away you are.
[QUOTE=Mr.Cookie;34800128]canadia video
[/QUOTE]
Wow, at first I thought this video was about a shot that took place in Canada, but then I saw the insurgents and thought "what the fuck are they doing in Canada" and then I remembered the narrator mentioned Afghanistan. Time to kill myself.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;34808113]This is what is left of a guy's head when a .50 hits it
[b]SERIOUSLY NSFW[/b]
[url=http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/40566d1237943034-suicide-bomber-failed-mission.jpg]clicky[/url]
[editline]21st February 2012[/editline]
Most of you have probably seen this picture anyway[/QUOTE]
That was probably from pretty close too. a .50 Round from nearly a mile away is actually coming down from above the target. And it's going much slower at that range than it would be after 100-200 meters, so it packs a harder punch. It would literally be more devastating and do more damage to a soft target than standing on top of a bomb
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
